Marries his high school teacher. That’s weird in itself. Then asks her for a divorce while she’s in treatment for cancer.
He then marries the woman he’s been cheating on his first wife with.
Newt lies to his second wife for six years while he’s carrying on an affair with his beloved Calista, then asks number two for a divorce after she’s been diagnosed with MS. No marital grass growing under Newt’s feet.
None of this seems to bother the Republican base, the “party of morality.”
RE: Do drones undermine democracy?
A reply to an editorial in the New York Times, Sunday by Peter W. Singer. To read the article, click here.
Mr. Singer’s article in the Sunday Times argues that congress and our government need to be more involved in deciding whether to wage war using robots. He correctly points out that by removing the personal and political risk of war “they (politicians) no longer treat the previously weighty matters of war and peace the same way.” His argument is cogent, but even if we adopt his recommendations, it won’t solve the central issue that should be addressed: robotic attacks are inherently immoral. Having congress approve such attacks won’t have any moral authority unless the ethical question of whether to use them at all is answered.
In the Republican debate in South Carolina last week, Ron Paul expressed a simple premise for our foreign policy; why not a “golden rule” test for policy…..the U.S. won’t do to other countries anything that we wouldn’t want done to us. His proposal was met with booing and jeers by the Republican audience, echoing their belief in “American Exceptional-ism” I suggest that in addition to the golden rule, another biblical value apropos here is that “pride goeth before a fall.”
The idea that America will have exclusive use of robotic weapons for any length of time is absurd, especially since we are busily selling robot technology worldwide. Unless things change, is inevitable that drones will be flying over the U.S. sooner or later.
Singer points out that “ten years ago, the idea of using armed robots in war was the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.” It is instructive to note that in almost all of these movies, the force employing robots against less technologically advanced populations were the bad guys. Us.
There is precedent for dealing with the problem of select nations having access to weapons that are so advanced that they disrupt the balance of world peace: nuclear weapons. When we dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in WW II, the world was stunned into silent disbelief, and after the Soviets obtained the bomb, it became apparent to all that international agreements to govern their use were necessary. Those agreements continue today as a successful (so far) work-in-progress, and similar agreements are needed to address the use of robotics if we want to keep our skies free of predator drones.
Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court’s opinion.
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizen’s United case, we can look forward to the ugliest election in recent history. By interpreting the First Amendment through a convoluted argument, the court has decided that money equals speech.
How did the court decide that allowing unlimited and unsourced money to be spent on behalf of candidates will be a good thing?
We’ve seen a preview of the law’s effect in the Iowa Republican primary race, but I believe the Presidential race will be even worse. I shudder to think what the anti-Obama ads will be like.
The net effect of the law will be to reduce the public’s esteem for politicians and our government to an all-time low.